BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Bil Harley <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 15 Oct 2010 06:14:49 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
Matthew wrote, “…… I think
it is worth pointing out that the source for this article appears to be Bayer CropScience. Monheim (in the article's dateline) is the home of Bayer's global headquarters, and the article can be found on their website”

This would explain the apparent contradiction in the citations attributed to Chauzat et al., 2009, and these from the same paper.
Chauzat et al., 2009 found that,  “The main conclusions from project activities can be summarized as follows:
• General weakness of most of the surveillance systems in the 24 countries investigated;
• Lack of representative data at country level and comparable data at EU level for colony losses;
• Consensus of the scientific community about the multifactorial origin of colony losses in Europe and in the United States and insufficient knowledge of causative and risk factors for colony losses.”
And recommended:
“Establishment of a sustainable European network for coordination and follow-up of
surveillance on colony losses to underpin monitoring programmes;
• Undertake specific studies that build on the existing work in progress to improve the knowledge and understanding of factors that affect bee health (for example stress caused by pathogens, pesticides, environmental and technological factors and their interactions) using appropriate epidemiological studies (case control and longitudinal studies).
 The conclusion is that there is insufficient data and no coherent way of collecting it, but, this would not be suitable for the Bayer argument. Using their technique of selective quotes I find, “Concentrations as low as 6 ppb of imidacloprid and 2 ppb of fipronil have caused observed sub-lethal effects (Colin et al., 2004).”
I could continue but to what purpose? The pro Bayer camp will never admit to any doubt and the anti-neonicotinoid movement does not have the propaganda machinery that Bayer has.

Bil

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm

ATOM RSS1 RSS2